MINIMUM 15 APA 7TH EDITION REFERENCES, INTEXT CITATION MANDATORY, PLEASE FOLLOW RUBRICS AND ATTACHED USEFUL INFORMATION STRICTLY
Unit Outline Page 1 of 25… Extended Unit Outline – NRSG377_FINAL MODERATED_202360 © Australian Catholic University 2023 ASSIGNMENT 2 Additional information is available on the NRSG377 Leo Site within the Assessment Tile Weighting: 50% Length and/or format: 1500 words +/- 10% Purpose: This assessment enables students to demonstrate sound written communication skills and synthesis of concepts, through contribution, reflection, and response to discussions about professional and leadership issues in nursing and health care. Learning outcomes assessed: LO3, LO4, LO5 How to submit: This assessment must be submitted via Turnitin through NRSG377 LEO Site. Multiple submissions can be made up until the due date for the assessment (please note that there can be a 24-48 hour lock out period between each submission). Resubmissions are NOT permitted after the due date. Return of assignment: Grades and feedback will be made available through Turnitin in accordance with ACU policy. As per ACU Assessment Policy, the grades for this assessment task will not be available until release of results for the Unit. Assessment criteria: The criterion-referenced rubric on Appendix B should be used to guide your writing. This rubric will also form the basis of your feedback. Page 2 of 25… Extended Unit Outline – NRSG377_FINAL MODERATED_202360 © Australian Catholic University 2023 Appendix B - Assessment Task 2 Overview The role of a clinical leader: To motivate, to inspire, to promote the values of the Healthcare profession, to empower and create a consistent focus on the needs of patients being served. Leadership is necessary not just to maintain high standards of care, but to transform services to achieve even higher levels of excellence” (Department of Health, 2007, p.49 as stated in Stanley, 2023). You are a graduate registered nurse working on a surgical ward in a large regional hospital. You have been working on the ward for the past six (6) months and are feeling comfortable in your role as the registered nurse. In the past couple of weeks, you have observed/ noticed the following in practice and through your own professional development: There have been many staff, inclusive of nursing and allied health who have resigned from their positions. You have also noted that the casual/ pool staff that are allocated to the ward are not happy to be there. You have overheard the pool staff make comments like “they do not feel welcome, they are always given the heaviest workload and if an incident occurs, they are always blamed.” There has been an increase in patients being readmitted to the ward due to complications of wound breakdowns. When observing other staff members completing dressing changes for patients, you notice a large discrepancy in techniques and notice a significant lack in following the ward policy related to dressing changes. After reading some journal articles for PD, you have identified that Electronic Medical Records (EMR) are utilised in some health services however in the regional hospital, medical records are paper- based version. This makes you wonder, what type of records have a more positive effect on patients and health care professionals? After reflecting on these observations, as a clinical leader, you have escalated your concerns to your Nurse Unit Manager who supports your concerns and advises you to write a letter to Myles Chamberlain, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the health service district. In your letter, respond to the following: 1. Identify the issue/ practice concern/ ward culture that you would propose to change and give a background explanation why (using current literature). (250 words) 2. Identify two (2) interventions you propose to implement that are specific and achievable in relation to your identified area for change. Discuss how you are going to engage stakeholders and communicate these proposed interventions. (400 words) 3. Identify two (2) possible barriers to change, one (1) individual and one (1) organisational and discuss. (300 words) 4. Identify the leadership style that you will adopt in this innovation for change. Analyse how the attributes of this specific leadership style would benefit and guide success of this change management proposal. (400 words) Department of Health. (2007). Our NHS: Our Future. NHS Next Stage Review Interim Report. London: HM Stationary Office Stanley, D. (2019). Values-based leadership in healthcare: Congruent leadership explored. SAGE Page 3 of 25… Extended Unit Outline – NRSG377_FINAL MODERATED_202360 © Australian Catholic University 2023 Appendix B: Assessment Task 2 Rubric marked at 100% and weighted at 50% of the overall grade Criteria (marks) High Distinction (HD) 100- 85% Distinction (D) 84-75% Credit (CR) 74-65% Pass (PA) 64-50% Fail (NN) 49-0% Fail – No attempt Structure, Mechanics, and Intelligibility 5 marks 5 marks 4 marks 3 marks 2.5 marks 1 mark 0 marks The formal letter structure has been followed. Written in first person. Cohesive writing that has information organised appropriately within each paragraph. Each paragraph relates to a discrete idea. There are clear linking sentences that link each paragraph to the next. There are no errors with grammar, spelling and punctuation, and the meaning is easily discernible. The formal letter structure has been followed. Written in first person. The writing is organised into paragraphs, and the information is organised appropriately within the paragraph. Each paragraph relates to a discrete idea. There are clear linking sentences that link most paragraphs to the next. There are minimal errors with grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The meaning is readily discernible. The formal letter structure has been followed. Written in first person. The writing is organised into paragraphs, and the information is mostly organised appropriately within the paragraph. Most paragraphs relate to a discrete idea. There are clear linking sentences that link most paragraphs to the next. There are some errors with grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The errors detract; however, the meaning is discernible. The formal letter structure is somewhat followed. Written in first person. The writing is organised into paragraphs, and the information is somewhat organised appropriately within the paragraph. Some paragraphs relate to a discrete idea. The paragraphs mostly link to one another. There are substantial errors with grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The errors detract significantly, but the meaning is discernible. The formal letter structure has not been followed. Not written in first person. There is evidence of paragraphs, however paragraph structure is organised, with no clear ideas, and no links or there is no evidence of paragraphs. Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are such that the reader cannot make sense of the content. No paragraphs. The reader cannot make sense of the content. Understanding of the need for change and identification of the issue at hand. 20 marks 18 – 20 marks 17.5 – 16 marks 13 – 15.5 marks 12.5 – 10 marks 9.5 – 0.5 marks 0 marks Clear and concise identification of why this issue/ practice concern/ ward culture needs to change. Comprehensive, concise, and critical discussion that is all directly relevant to the issue/ practice concern/ ward culture. All arguments are supported and justified with high quality, credible and appropriate literature, and evidence. Clear identification of why this issue/ practice concern/ ward culture needs to change. Significant, concise, and critical discussion that is directly relevant to the issue/ practice concern/ ward culture. Most arguments are supported and justified with high quality, credible and appropriate literature, and evidence. Identification of why this issue/ practice concern/ ward culture needs to change has some clarity. Discussion is relevant to the issue/ practice concern/ ward culture, however, is descriptive throughout. Some arguments are supported and justified with quality, credible and mostly appropriate literature, and evidence. Identification of why this issue/ practice concern/ ward culture needs to change lacks clarity. Discussion has some relevance to the issue/ practice concern/ ward culture, however, is descriptive throughout. Many arguments lack support and justification however some credible literature and evidence has been used. No identification of why this issue/ practice concern/ ward culture needs to change. Discussion has limited relevance to the issue/ practice concern/ ward culture. Most arguments are not supported and/or justified with credible literature and evidence. No issue/ practice concern/ war culture identified. There is no discussion relevant to the case study. There is no evidence to support discussions. Page 4 of 25… Extended Unit Outline – NRSG377_FINAL MODERATED_202360 © Australian Catholic University 2023 Criteria (marks) High Distinction (HD) 100- 85% Distinction (D) 84-75% Credit (CR) 74-65% Pass (PA) 64-50% Fail (NN) 49-0% Fail – No attempt Proposal for change Two (2) interventions for change identified and both interventions are specific and achievable. 25 marks 25 – 23 marks 22.5 – 20 marks 19 – 16 marks 15.5 – 12.5 marks 12 – 0.5 marks 0 marks Comprehensive, concise, and critical discussion that is relevant to stakeholder engagement and communication of proposed interventions. All arguments are supported and justified with high quality, credible and appropriate literature, and evidence. Significant, concise, and critical discussion that is directly relevant to stakeholder engagement and communication of proposed interventions. Most arguments are supported and justified with high quality, credible and appropriate literature, and evidence. Discussion is relevant to stakeholder engagement and communication of proposed interventions; however, discussion is descriptive throughout. Some arguments are supported and justified with quality, credible and mostly appropriate literature, and evidence Less than 2 interventions have been identified. Either one (1) or both interventions are mostly specific and achievable. Discussion has some relevance to stakeholder engagement and communication of proposed interventions; however, discussion is descriptive throughout. Many arguments lack support and justification from quality however some credible literature and evidence has been used. Either one (1) or both interventions for change omitted. Interventions are mostly not specific and/or achievable. Discussion has limited relevance to stakeholder engagement and communication of proposed interventions. Most arguments are not supported and/or justified with credible literature and evidence. No interventions for change identified. There is no discussion relevant to the case study. There is no evidence to support discussions. Barriers to change One (1) individual and one (1) organisational barrier to change identified and both barriers are relevant and appropriate. 20 marks 18 – 20 marks 17.5 – 16 marks 13 – 15.5 marks 12.5 – 10 marks 9.5 – 0.5 marks 0 marks Comprehensive, concise, and critical discussion that is all directly relevant to the identified barriers of change. All arguments are supported and justified with high quality, credible and appropriate literature, and evidence. Significant, concise, and critical discussion that is relevant to the identified barriers of change. Most arguments are supported and justified with high quality, credible and appropriate literature, and evidence. . Discussion is relevant to the identified barriers of change. However, it is descriptive throughout. Some arguments are supported and justified with quality, credible and mostly appropriate literature, and evidence. Less than 2 barriers to change identified. Either one (1) or both barriers are mostly relevant and appropriate. Discussion has some relevance to the identified barriers of change, however, is descriptive throughout. Many arguments lack support and justification from quality however some credible literature and evidence has been used. Either one (1) individual or one (1) organisational barrier to change omitted. Barriers are mostly irrelevant and/or not appropriate. Discussion is not justified and lacks clarity. Most arguments are not supported and/or justified with credible literature and evidence. No barriers to change identified